>>I don't think it is Iran that needs to be crushed so much as particular Iranians.
>>
>>True, let me paraphrase - the government of Iran - which held innocent American citizens hostage for over a year, supported Hezbollah in attacking and killing 240+ American marines, have attempted to kill American servicemen in Iraq, and have repeatedly supported (in some measurable way) numerous attacks by Islamic terrorists.
>
>And of course the US has never done anything to harm Iran.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
>
>and by arranging the overthrow of the elected Iranian government in the 1950s and the installation of the Shah (who was a disaster) the US helped to create the modern Iran.

You are absolutely correct. The shah was a weasel, the Savak were the devil's minions. I had contempt for the former and a very unpleasant experience involving the latter. But I would just make the point that the CIA overthrow of Mosadegh in 54 was not the alternative to democratic, self-governed, non-interferred with Iran moving forward into a bright future. Mosadegh was going to either be controlled or overthrown by the Soviets within a very short time. MI 6 was also giving some serious thought to rearranging the place settings in the region and there were elements in the Iranian military that had some ideas of their own who were as bad as the Shah but who didn't room with Richard Helms at Rosy.

I don't defend the behavior of our ugly puppet or his flying monkeys. i just make the point that inaction also has consequences you have to live with down the road. The calls are tough and we often got them wrong. I think the big problem with Iran was giving Savak too much control, making the dissatisfaction quite justified.

But remember that the Shah's folks mostly got out in 79. Most of the victims of the executions and torture cells were Mujahaddin Kalk, other varieties of communists, Kurds, Jews, real democrats, and just plain folks who wouldn't swallow the Shah's or Khomeni's BS - the difference being that if you weren't political the Shah let you do pretty much what you wanted, while the Righteous wanted a piece of your soul.

I consider Iran one of the truly great failures of US foreign policy for a lot of reasons - including some very ignoble reasons on the part of US, French and British business interests -, but it is not the complete reason for Iran's troubles and at this stage is definitely not the reason Iran is suffering under a regime that is worse than the worst days of the Shah.